Re: [Python-Dev] New syntax for 'dynamic' attribute access

[Marek \"Baczek\" Baczyński]

2007/2/12, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Collin Winter wrote:
> > There's a connection, but I'd say it's the wrong one. In C, "x->y"
> > dereferences x, while in Python, "x->y" would dereference y. That's
> > just begging for trouble.
>
> Then the syntax should obviously be "x<-y".


Someone with OCaml background could confuse that with an assignment 


-- 
Marek Baczyński
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Explicit Lexical Scoping (pre-PEP?)

[Marek \"Baczek\" Baczyński]

2006/7/5, Just van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > On 7/5/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Did you also consider and reject:
> > >
> > > * Alternate binding operators (e.g. ":=", ".=", etc.)
> >
> > Brr.
>
> That's too bad :(
>
> I still find a rebinding operator (":=" being my favorite) much, *much*
> more appealing than any of the alternative proposals. It's beautifully
> symmetrical with "assignment means local". It also pretty much makes the
> global statement redundant.
>
> The only downside I see is that it may cause a fairly big shift in
> style: I for one would use := for rebinding local names. While I think
> that would be an improvement (eg. by catching typo's earlier), it's
> *different*.



I suggest <- as an assignment operator instead of := - it's used in
OCaml and it looks *very* different, yet still makes sense.

  x = 0
  print x
  def f():
x =  1 # bind locally
print x
  def g():
x <- 42 # assign "lexically"
print x
  f()
  print x
  g()
  print x

prints

0
1
0
42
42


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com